degrassifandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Zoë Rivas/@comment-25290273-20150110221609/@comment-25290273-20150111013028
Apologism (via Wikitionary): a defense or excuse, a speech or written answer in justification of anyone. http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/apologism According to this definition, my use of "apologism" was not wrong. It corroborates my use because I claimed that I was tired of hearing "dry, 'excuse' defenses attempting to absolve Zoe...," which is exactly what I meant to convey. Nothing in the definition purports that the nature of a true apologism must necessarily ABSOLVE anything, but here we arrive at the first of many other equivocations in meaning that you have injected into what I actually said. Unlike you, I didn't assume that you didn't know what you were talking about until I had facts to prove it, but the rest of your response gives me plenty of reason to believe that you have not only distorted the meaning of what I said, but also did so because you failed to understand it from the beginning (as I shall proceed to prove). You claim that what you and other Zoe-supporters are doing ("understanding and sympathizing with" her behavior as a result of the ordeal) is not the same as condoning her behavior (like I claimed it was) because what you are doing (according to yourself) does not "absolve" her of anything. But then, in nearly the very next block of your reply, you imply that she should not be held accountable for her behavior because her rape has "rewired her brain circuits" in a manner that "affects her perception of relationships." In case you are unaware, acknowledging her wrong behavior and then supplying a reason for it that erases her culpability immediately afterward is "apologizing" (in the sense of the word that's actually supported by a dictionary reference, above). Showing compassion without absolving an individual may extenuate the person, but it only does that. Moving further to absolve them eliminates their culpability (which is what I imagine would happen when someone's BRAIN is rewired). If you are going to assert that her "traumatizing ordeal" has "rewired her brain circuits" in "ways that affect her perception of relationships," you must THEN amend that you think her actions toward the others are not acceptable IF you truly wish to prevent your justifications from being interpreted as "apologisms." If I were sincerely the asshole you implied me to be, I would illustrate to you exactly how your line of reasoning violates a serious ethical principle by pointing out that as a corollary, YOU are suggesting it is okay for Zoe to be mendacious and manipulative because her rape "rewired her perception of relationships." But since I suspect that you don't want the stigma of that observtion attached to your position, I won't argue against HER behavior any further. Yes, her behavior IS realistic, and as an expression of art, I applaud Degrassi for remaining true to that. However, there is (yet another difference) between appreciating art as art and appreciating art for what it conveys about the world. I do not applaud the behavior (nor its justification) as a principle of the way we should comport ourselves. The characters, the behavior, and every other element as it pertains to the show mean fuck all to me, in themselves; it's the principle that I'm concerned with calling out when I say that Zoe-supporters are "apologizing" (which they are) for her behavior. If you assert that it is, in principle, okay for her to deal with it in ways that harm others (as well as herself) just because she has suffered from a rape some months before, should we then proceed to apply your same principle to real-world individuals experiencing similar trauma who distribute illegal images for money, jeopardize his co-conspirators, and falsely incriminate others when the libel is likely to cause damage to the person's livelihood? The courts would decide otherwise, but the theme I presume that you're missing is that no one action justifies (or necessitates) another merely on the basis that a past wrong has been endured (when the people being afflicted don't deserve the treatment). This is a slightly more legalistic variation of the elementary-school axiom two wrongs don't make a right, but the principle itself remains salient all the same. Unless you can demonstrate that Zoe's rape necessitated shitty behavior (in a manner that renders suitable alternatives infeasible), waived her of responsibility for her actions, and eliminated an obligation to other human beings to treat them respectfully (in an irrefutable manner), then you are "apologizing" (rather inadequately) for her behavior.